EU Warns Musk Not to Restore Free Speech Protections After Calls from Clinton and Other Democratic Leaders

We have been discussing how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation.

For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.

EU censors have assured Democratic leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers.

One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.

Breton himself threatened that Twitter must “fly by [the European Union’s] rules” in censoring views deemed misleading or harmful by EU bureaucrats. Breton has been moving publicly to warn Musk not to try to reintroduce protections that go beyond the tolerance of the EU for free speech. Musk is planning to meet with the EU censors and has conceded that he may not be able resist such mandatory censorship rules.

The hope of leaders like Clinton is the anti-free speech measure recently passed by EU countries, the Digital Services Act. The DSA contains mandatory “disinformation” rules for censoring “harmful” thoughts or views.

Breton has made no secret that he views free speech as a danger coming from the United States that needs to be walled off from the Internet. He previously declared that, with the DSA, the EU is now able to prevent the Internet from again becoming a place for largely unregulated free speech, which he referred to as the “Wild West” period of the Internet.

It is a telling reference because the EU views free speech itself as an existential danger. They reject the notion of free speech as its own protection where good speech can overcome bad speech. That is viewed as the “Wild West.”

Many of us are far more fearful of global censors than some whack job spewing hateful thoughts from his basement. That is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlords monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The danger of the rising levels of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science — or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.

410 thoughts on “EU Warns Musk Not to Restore Free Speech Protections After Calls from Clinton and Other Democratic Leaders”

  1. NEVER FORGET… That Barack Obama…. who publicly considers himself a “free-speech absolutist”…. was reported caught saying that “authenticity is overrated” … and just spent the past few days praising Joe Biden…. the same guy Politico wrote his having said “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to F*ck things up”… “and you know who doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.” — And recently in a condescending tone pretty much told us WE have to be civil & polite when we challenge / question politicians. (Ever notice that you can’t spell “politicians” w/o CIA being in the middle?) And basically made the reference “Let them eat cake”. So says the guy with houses in the Hawaii, Hampton’s & Malibu…. NEVER forget that BO wanted CASS SUNSTEIN (Sam Power) to be his CIO… and his plan to Criminalize / Ban Free Speech / Thought / Association in 2008… until people uncovered his plans in a published academic paper. – As a VERY WELL KNOWN (actual) pre-Snowden Nat Sec Whistleblower (the CIA front “Whistleblower Aid” Facebook Franny Haugen and Twitter / Goog / DARPA Peiter “Mudge” Zatko and the “Anonymous” CIA “whistleblower”…. lawyers Mark Zaid, John Tye, Andrew Bakaj ran away from me…NYT, WAPO, 60 Minutes….) associated to what I call / WARNED congress, DOJ-FBI, Fed Court, media approaching 2 decades ago as “The Military Industrial Surveillance Complex”. Then as now… the OBVIOUS, logical, legitimate, reasonable, justifiable response I advocated for continues to be IGNORED! (The thing speaks for itself!) / (BTW… it STILL doesn’t matter who / how many vote… what matters is who counts the votes…) Jonathan… as always, if you have any thoughts / questions… let me know. Peace. Mark J. Novitsky Ephesians 6:12 /

    1. “Something” happened… previous message. 2nd attempt. (Over 2,900 recorded views) My former employer / MASSIVE USG IC / DOD-DARPA “Strategic Partner” Denver-based Tele Tech Holdings TTEC / Tele Tech Government Solutions and its UBER Powerful / LOBBY firm Denver / DC Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck Illegal / Malicious / Failed legal attack… they had to seek a Dismissal With Prejudice of their own malicious / hostile lawsuit because they could not risk “Discovery” on the Fed Court Record. I acted pretty much pro-se. /

  2. The EU is infamous for its lack of free speech protections. We don’t need their advice on freedom of speech, thank you. That would be like consulting with China on human rights.

        1. David, do you always let other people tell you what a third person said? Have you ever heard of primary information? Your source tells us why you come up with so many lame ideas. A headline writes: “Elon Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist. “ and immediately you jump to that conclusion. Did Musk ever call himself a free speech absolutist. I never saw that, but left-wing sites are more than willing to jump to conclusions if it suits their purposes. The article you site didn’t include anything from Musk.

            1. In other words, if you can’t find what you are looking for you report cr-p. How academic.

              I won’t look it up because I don’t think Musk said it.

                1. No, my position is that you were stupid for relying on a headline instead of a quote. You rely too much on blogs, secondary and tertiary sources, and sources that are based on inaccurate data or claims.

                  What Musk said or didn’t say is meaningless to me. What he does is what counts. Your thinking process is very superficial.

                2. David, you have just proven yourself stupid. Instead of using a headline to prove your quote, since it was so simple, you should have gone directly to the quote. You didn’t and that is a blemish on academia.

                  Even here you proved yourself not a good academic. A good academic would have included the link. I trust the quote because it doesn’t matter. If it did matter I would search for it and look for context, something you do not understand.

                  1. S. Meyer, what you stated earlier was that you didn’t think Musk wrote that. So you want to have it both ways by being inconsistent in an attempt to prove tha you are always right.

                    How wrong of you. Nothing that you say is reliable.

                    1. I didn’t think Musk wrote that. So what? It is a meaningless statement so I don’t care. When you quote headlines and tertiary sources instead of the primary source it is a stain on you and academia, since you were an academic, but as we see with many academics, they are not prepared to deal in the real world.

                      Musk is going to act to make the maximum profit. A desire to see free speech prevail is the way to go.

                    2. S. Meeyer, that is really stupid. A quote is a quote. Further, what you “thought” is shown wrong.

                      By the way, I’ve been retired for about 20 years.

                    3. “By the way, I’ve been retired for about 20 years”

                      You don’t have to tell us David. It shows.”

                      ” A quote is a quote.”

                      What you linked to originally wasn’t a quote. You should learn what a quote is.

  3. I Like your analogy Jonathan,

    “… If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. …”

    But *WHAT-IF* a ‘Universal Service Obligation(s), [e.g.: Public Payphones]’ was instituted by Twitter Corp. For example, starting @ 1-cent per Tweet.

    In the late 1920s, the cost of a payphone call in the United States was two cents. In the 1930s, calls were five cents. Early in the 21st century as payphones became rare, the price of a call was fifty cents.

    To use a payphone today, it can cost anywhere from $0.50 to $3 for the first few minutes, followed by $0.25 to $2 for each additional minute. Higher trafficked places, such an airport, can cost more. For example, broke down the payphone costs at a local airport and found out the following: a local call would cost $0.50 for unlimited talking when using coins and $4.09 for a connection charge, plus $1.69 per minute if using a debit card. An intrastate long-distance call would cost $1 for four minutes. This can all depend on the country as well. For example, in Canada, the costs for a local payphone is $0.50.

    -$- CHA-CHING -$-
    Elon the Cash Cow

  4. Let’s see if we can get some of the progressive hive minded internet trolling stalkers to shove their unethical and unconstitutional feet in their mouth at the same time.

    Here’s a great quote from a lawyer I know…

    “Urging third parties to censor US speech is clearly unethical, and our government doing it is illegal.”

    Hold your breath folks, the door to romper room is now open.

  5. “The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech . . .”

    When you criminalize speech, how do you expect individuals to settle their disputes?

    That alternative is never pretty.

  6. We have been discussing the pending Supreme Court case involving Harvard and UNC, and the corrosive effect of race-based college admissions policies. Policies that privilege less qualified black applicants at the expense of more qualified whites and Chinese.

    Think about one of the most intimate, personal and consequential decisions in a human being’s life: the choice of a doctor. A choice often made when the patient is sick, scared, and at his or her most vulnerable.

    Prominent hospitals are anticipating the coming crisis. How? By adopting patient codes of conduct that force patients to accept the physicians assigned by the hospital. By forcing their patients to support the hospital’s bankrupt, woke racial preference goals. Don’t like your assigned black doctor? The hospital will consider your concerns, but the hospital reserves the right to refuse care. You racist bigot. It will be like being a young man at a college Title IX hearing, except that lives are at stake. Literally.

    Imagine being a competent black doctor that made the cut without racial preferences. How is this fair to him or her? And what about the progressives’ new theory of ‘racial concordance?’ Backed by NIH-sponsored science showing that healthcare outcomes are better when physicians and patients are of the same race so that they can better communicate, understand concerns, and develop a closer relationship. Oh wait. That’s a one way ratchet, so never mind.

    Paraphrasing Maura Healey, the Attorney General and chief law enforcement officer of the state of Massachusetts, maybe it is time to burn down the system. That’s how forests grow.

  7. What makes me laugh until my belly hurts, is these nincompoops don’t see the irony and hypocrisy right before their own eyes! They are using THEIR right to free speech, to denounce and try to limit free speech for others!! Like the idiot clown from the Middle East who was seen standing on a sidewalk, holding up a sign that said “Free speech can go to Hell!!” Are THEY the only ones who get to enjoy that right?? WHY is that? If all of us cannot enjoy the right to speak freely, then why should anyone have that right?

  8. Some commentators on this blog are saying advertisers on Twitter are leaving in droves. Here’s a little piece of the article from POLITICO. Mediabrands — the media arm of the advertising behemoth IPG — sent a letter to clients Monday instructing them to stop advertising on Twitter until Nov. 7, the person said. The group’s high-profile clients include American Express, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss & Co., and Spotify and the company manages more than $40 billion in advertising spend globally. The person declined to comment on whether any of the brands have suspended ads yet. “Declined to say if any advertisers have left Twitter.” Do you think that these firms will voluntarily give up presenting their products to 368 million Twitter users? Wishful thinking presented as fact.

  9. So Twitter used to attack your political opponents and spread lies is ok…..but restoring free speech and the sharing of differing thought is illegal/borderline criminal?!? Really? This is where we’re at….where free speech and differing thought is “wrong”?!?

    I thought we were supposed to value people who were different than us, thought different than us….talked different than us….looked different than us. When did this become wrong?

    1. We are nothing but chattel to these monster’s. China got away with a huge genocide and we still kiss China’s ass. The only thing that will be free in the near future will be what the monster’s will tell you what to do and all the people will bough their heads like obedient servants. The global mask theater proved all that. People need to be told what to do because it makes them feel safe and a part of something. All that is going on is that they are in the weeding out stage and I’m sure I’m on a list some where. I guess this means my life is in imminent danger and I and others that don’t need any instructions in life from the elites will act accordingly.

  10. “SO … @JoeBiden is trying to use the attack on Paul Pelosi by a crazed illegal alien to blame Republicans for political violence via January 6. His closing argument in 2022 is about 2020. (And you thought *Trump* couldn’t get over it.) Democrats are in deep trouble on Tuesday.”

    “Reminder that Biden has never publicly spoken out against the man who tried to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh.”

    Brazil had same day results. Pretty much every country does. But not the U.S. Our vote counting stops and then we are told counting takes days or weeks. We are asked to patiently wait? For what? Democrats to STEAL MORE ELECTIONS?

    Hello Joe Biden? The question for you is: will YOU accept the results of the election? Will your Democrat party accept the results?

    YOU are a liar, Joe Biden. YOU are a pathetic liar. Sweep them all out of power on Tuesday. DECISIVELY.

    1. “That speech tonight was not a campaign speech. It did not have any real persuasive value or political intent. It was a speech specifically meant to manage and mold expectations about the vote-counting process.


      Worse than Philadelphia.” @walterkirn

    2. PRO TIP: If your state cannot count every vote on election night, there’s cheating in your state. Entire nations count their votes on Election Day.

      If you can’t, it’s because you don’t want to.

      1. Amen,

        It is trivial to conduct an election with results that can be trusted.

        The fact that we do not, is because those in power do not want use too.

Leave a Reply